Where no claim is confirmed by a judgment that there is no claim, whether the exercise in subrogation and res judicata conflict with that of the claim.

If the plaintiff who purchased the real estate from the defendant Gap and Eul through the defendant Eul filed a lawsuit for the execution of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer based on the sale of the above real estate with Gap as the other party Eul and Eul as the cause of the claim, but lost the lawsuit, and if the judgment becomes final and conclusive, the plaintiff cannot seek for the implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer based on the res judicata of the above final and conclusive judgment. Accordingly, the plaintiff cannot seek for the implementation of the procedure for the registration cancellation of his name on behalf of Gap,

Article 404 of the Civil Act, Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and three others

Seoul High Court Decision 85Na876 delivered on October 15, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below reasoned that the plaintiff could not claim ownership of the real estate of this case against the defendants, the title holder of the real estate of this case, because he did not complete the registration of ownership transfer under his own name. However, in order to preserve the right to claim ownership transfer of the real estate of this case on behalf of the non-party company on behalf of the non-party company, the plaintiff is bound to seek implementation of the registration procedure of this case by subrogation of the non-party company in order to preserve the right to claim ownership transfer on the premise that the non-party company has the right to claim ownership transfer of the real estate of this case on behalf of the non-party company, and in determining the claim of this case as subrogation claim, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit to implement the registration procedure of ownership transfer due to the sale of this case on behalf of the non-party company as the counter-party company as the other party company, but the judgment against the plaintiff was final and conclusive. Accordingly, the plaintiff cannot seek the execution of the registration procedure of cancellation by subrogation of the non

In light of the records, the above measures of the court below are just and there is no error in the judgment as to res judicata, and it is clear that the above reasons are not legitimate grounds for appeal in light of the provisions of Article 11 of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Lawsuits.

Therefore, the appeal is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Jeon Soo-soo (Presiding Justice)